Malignant Mesothelioma vs. Reactive Mesothelial Proliferations: Immunohistochemical Profile

Autores
Moretti, L.; García, A.; Nieto, S.; Elsner, Boris; Avagnina, Alejandra; Denninghoff, Valeria Cecilia
Año de publicación
2014
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
AIMS: To examine the distribution of immunohistochemical markers GLUT-1, EMA (membrane epithelial antigen) and Ki-67 in benign and malignant mesothelial lesions. Thus, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of these markers, used alone or in conjunction, was established. STUDY DESIGN: Observational, retro-prospective and non-randomized study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Department of Pathology, Center for Medical Education and Clinical Research "Norberto Quirno" (CEMIC), between 2004 and 2011. METHODOLOGY: A total of 53 cases diagnosed as mesothelioma (n=15) or reactive mesothelial hyperplasia (n=38) were selected. Routine techniques using hematoxylin-eosin and immunostaining with EMA, GLUT-1, and Mib-1 were performed. RESULTS: Mesotheliomas cohort was immunoreactive for GLUT-1 in 11/15 (73%) cases, and for EMA in 13/15 (87%) cases. The group of reactive lesions was positive for GLUT-1 in 2/38 cases (5%), and positive for EMA in 7/38 (18%) cases. The median proliferation rate was 1% in benign lesions and 3% in mesotheliomas. The sensitivity and specificity for EMA was 87% and 82% respectively, with a positive predictive value of 65% and a negative predictive value of 94%. The sensitivity and specificity for GLUT-1 was 73% and 95% respectively, with a positive predictive value of 85% and a negative predictive value of 90%. CONCLUSION: EMA and GLUT-1 are sensitive and specific markers that express more frequently in mesothelioma than in benign mesothelial lesions with higher specificity in the case of GLUT-1 for the detection of malignant proliferations. In a mesothelial proliferation without invasion criteria, EMA and GLUT-1, including histopathology, may be sensitive and specific markers to define malignancy. Thus, a morphologically doubtful mesothelial proliferation with positive staining (diffuse and intense), for these antibodies could be a mesothelioma. However, the evidence of underlying tissue infiltration by mesothelial cells currently remains the gold standard for diagnosis of mesothelioma. Both markers should be included in the immunohistochemical panel to distinguish benign from malignant mesothelial lesions.
Fil: Moretti, L.. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigación Clínica "Norberto Quirno"; Argentina
Fil: García, A.. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigación Clínica "Norberto Quirno"; Argentina
Fil: Nieto, S.. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigación Clínica "Norberto Quirno"; Argentina
Fil: Elsner, Boris. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigación Clínica "Norberto Quirno"; Argentina
Fil: Avagnina, Alejandra. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigación Clínica "Norberto Quirno"; Argentina
Fil: Denninghoff, Valeria Cecilia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. CEMIC-CONICET. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigaciones Clínicas "Norberto Quirno". CEMIC-CONICET.; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Materia
Mesothelioma
GLUT-1
EMA
Immunohistochemistry
Mesothelial hiperplasia
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/34160
Acceder
id CONICETDig_d8939c97ac0e5caf31e56a6016a05f44
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/34160
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Malignant Mesothelioma vs. Reactive Mesothelial Proliferations: Immunohistochemical ProfileMoretti, L.García, A.Nieto, S.Elsner, BorisAvagnina, AlejandraDenninghoff, Valeria CeciliaMesotheliomaGLUT-1EMAImmunohistochemistryMesothelial hiperplasiahttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.2https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3AIMS: To examine the distribution of immunohistochemical markers GLUT-1, EMA (membrane epithelial antigen) and Ki-67 in benign and malignant mesothelial lesions. Thus, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of these markers, used alone or in conjunction, was established. STUDY DESIGN: Observational, retro-prospective and non-randomized study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Department of Pathology, Center for Medical Education and Clinical Research "Norberto Quirno" (CEMIC), between 2004 and 2011. METHODOLOGY: A total of 53 cases diagnosed as mesothelioma (n=15) or reactive mesothelial hyperplasia (n=38) were selected. Routine techniques using hematoxylin-eosin and immunostaining with EMA, GLUT-1, and Mib-1 were performed. RESULTS: Mesotheliomas cohort was immunoreactive for GLUT-1 in 11/15 (73%) cases, and for EMA in 13/15 (87%) cases. The group of reactive lesions was positive for GLUT-1 in 2/38 cases (5%), and positive for EMA in 7/38 (18%) cases. The median proliferation rate was 1% in benign lesions and 3% in mesotheliomas. The sensitivity and specificity for EMA was 87% and 82% respectively, with a positive predictive value of 65% and a negative predictive value of 94%. The sensitivity and specificity for GLUT-1 was 73% and 95% respectively, with a positive predictive value of 85% and a negative predictive value of 90%. CONCLUSION: EMA and GLUT-1 are sensitive and specific markers that express more frequently in mesothelioma than in benign mesothelial lesions with higher specificity in the case of GLUT-1 for the detection of malignant proliferations. In a mesothelial proliferation without invasion criteria, EMA and GLUT-1, including histopathology, may be sensitive and specific markers to define malignancy. Thus, a morphologically doubtful mesothelial proliferation with positive staining (diffuse and intense), for these antibodies could be a mesothelioma. However, the evidence of underlying tissue infiltration by mesothelial cells currently remains the gold standard for diagnosis of mesothelioma. Both markers should be included in the immunohistochemical panel to distinguish benign from malignant mesothelial lesions.Fil: Moretti, L.. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigación Clínica "Norberto Quirno"; ArgentinaFil: García, A.. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigación Clínica "Norberto Quirno"; ArgentinaFil: Nieto, S.. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigación Clínica "Norberto Quirno"; ArgentinaFil: Elsner, Boris. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigación Clínica "Norberto Quirno"; ArgentinaFil: Avagnina, Alejandra. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigación Clínica "Norberto Quirno"; ArgentinaFil: Denninghoff, Valeria Cecilia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. CEMIC-CONICET. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigaciones Clínicas "Norberto Quirno". CEMIC-CONICET.; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaSciencedomain International2014-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/34160Moretti, L.; García, A.; Nieto, S.; Elsner, Boris; Avagnina, Alejandra; et al.; Malignant Mesothelioma vs. Reactive Mesothelial Proliferations: Immunohistochemical Profile; Sciencedomain International; British Journal of Medicine and Medical Research; 4; 1; 1-2014; 95-1032231-0614CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://www.sciencedomain.org/abstract/2003info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.9734/BJMMR/2014/3180info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-03T10:05:36Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/34160instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-03 10:05:36.661CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Malignant Mesothelioma vs. Reactive Mesothelial Proliferations: Immunohistochemical Profile
title Malignant Mesothelioma vs. Reactive Mesothelial Proliferations: Immunohistochemical Profile
spellingShingle Malignant Mesothelioma vs. Reactive Mesothelial Proliferations: Immunohistochemical Profile
Moretti, L.
Mesothelioma
GLUT-1
EMA
Immunohistochemistry
Mesothelial hiperplasia
title_short Malignant Mesothelioma vs. Reactive Mesothelial Proliferations: Immunohistochemical Profile
title_full Malignant Mesothelioma vs. Reactive Mesothelial Proliferations: Immunohistochemical Profile
title_fullStr Malignant Mesothelioma vs. Reactive Mesothelial Proliferations: Immunohistochemical Profile
title_full_unstemmed Malignant Mesothelioma vs. Reactive Mesothelial Proliferations: Immunohistochemical Profile
title_sort Malignant Mesothelioma vs. Reactive Mesothelial Proliferations: Immunohistochemical Profile
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Moretti, L.
García, A.
Nieto, S.
Elsner, Boris
Avagnina, Alejandra
Denninghoff, Valeria Cecilia
author Moretti, L.
author_facet Moretti, L.
García, A.
Nieto, S.
Elsner, Boris
Avagnina, Alejandra
Denninghoff, Valeria Cecilia
author_role author
author2 García, A.
Nieto, S.
Elsner, Boris
Avagnina, Alejandra
Denninghoff, Valeria Cecilia
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Mesothelioma
GLUT-1
EMA
Immunohistochemistry
Mesothelial hiperplasia
topic Mesothelioma
GLUT-1
EMA
Immunohistochemistry
Mesothelial hiperplasia
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.2
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv AIMS: To examine the distribution of immunohistochemical markers GLUT-1, EMA (membrane epithelial antigen) and Ki-67 in benign and malignant mesothelial lesions. Thus, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of these markers, used alone or in conjunction, was established. STUDY DESIGN: Observational, retro-prospective and non-randomized study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Department of Pathology, Center for Medical Education and Clinical Research "Norberto Quirno" (CEMIC), between 2004 and 2011. METHODOLOGY: A total of 53 cases diagnosed as mesothelioma (n=15) or reactive mesothelial hyperplasia (n=38) were selected. Routine techniques using hematoxylin-eosin and immunostaining with EMA, GLUT-1, and Mib-1 were performed. RESULTS: Mesotheliomas cohort was immunoreactive for GLUT-1 in 11/15 (73%) cases, and for EMA in 13/15 (87%) cases. The group of reactive lesions was positive for GLUT-1 in 2/38 cases (5%), and positive for EMA in 7/38 (18%) cases. The median proliferation rate was 1% in benign lesions and 3% in mesotheliomas. The sensitivity and specificity for EMA was 87% and 82% respectively, with a positive predictive value of 65% and a negative predictive value of 94%. The sensitivity and specificity for GLUT-1 was 73% and 95% respectively, with a positive predictive value of 85% and a negative predictive value of 90%. CONCLUSION: EMA and GLUT-1 are sensitive and specific markers that express more frequently in mesothelioma than in benign mesothelial lesions with higher specificity in the case of GLUT-1 for the detection of malignant proliferations. In a mesothelial proliferation without invasion criteria, EMA and GLUT-1, including histopathology, may be sensitive and specific markers to define malignancy. Thus, a morphologically doubtful mesothelial proliferation with positive staining (diffuse and intense), for these antibodies could be a mesothelioma. However, the evidence of underlying tissue infiltration by mesothelial cells currently remains the gold standard for diagnosis of mesothelioma. Both markers should be included in the immunohistochemical panel to distinguish benign from malignant mesothelial lesions.
Fil: Moretti, L.. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigación Clínica "Norberto Quirno"; Argentina
Fil: García, A.. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigación Clínica "Norberto Quirno"; Argentina
Fil: Nieto, S.. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigación Clínica "Norberto Quirno"; Argentina
Fil: Elsner, Boris. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigación Clínica "Norberto Quirno"; Argentina
Fil: Avagnina, Alejandra. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigación Clínica "Norberto Quirno"; Argentina
Fil: Denninghoff, Valeria Cecilia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. CEMIC-CONICET. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigaciones Clínicas "Norberto Quirno". CEMIC-CONICET.; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
description AIMS: To examine the distribution of immunohistochemical markers GLUT-1, EMA (membrane epithelial antigen) and Ki-67 in benign and malignant mesothelial lesions. Thus, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of these markers, used alone or in conjunction, was established. STUDY DESIGN: Observational, retro-prospective and non-randomized study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Department of Pathology, Center for Medical Education and Clinical Research "Norberto Quirno" (CEMIC), between 2004 and 2011. METHODOLOGY: A total of 53 cases diagnosed as mesothelioma (n=15) or reactive mesothelial hyperplasia (n=38) were selected. Routine techniques using hematoxylin-eosin and immunostaining with EMA, GLUT-1, and Mib-1 were performed. RESULTS: Mesotheliomas cohort was immunoreactive for GLUT-1 in 11/15 (73%) cases, and for EMA in 13/15 (87%) cases. The group of reactive lesions was positive for GLUT-1 in 2/38 cases (5%), and positive for EMA in 7/38 (18%) cases. The median proliferation rate was 1% in benign lesions and 3% in mesotheliomas. The sensitivity and specificity for EMA was 87% and 82% respectively, with a positive predictive value of 65% and a negative predictive value of 94%. The sensitivity and specificity for GLUT-1 was 73% and 95% respectively, with a positive predictive value of 85% and a negative predictive value of 90%. CONCLUSION: EMA and GLUT-1 are sensitive and specific markers that express more frequently in mesothelioma than in benign mesothelial lesions with higher specificity in the case of GLUT-1 for the detection of malignant proliferations. In a mesothelial proliferation without invasion criteria, EMA and GLUT-1, including histopathology, may be sensitive and specific markers to define malignancy. Thus, a morphologically doubtful mesothelial proliferation with positive staining (diffuse and intense), for these antibodies could be a mesothelioma. However, the evidence of underlying tissue infiltration by mesothelial cells currently remains the gold standard for diagnosis of mesothelioma. Both markers should be included in the immunohistochemical panel to distinguish benign from malignant mesothelial lesions.
publishDate 2014
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2014-01
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/34160
Moretti, L.; García, A.; Nieto, S.; Elsner, Boris; Avagnina, Alejandra; et al.; Malignant Mesothelioma vs. Reactive Mesothelial Proliferations: Immunohistochemical Profile; Sciencedomain International; British Journal of Medicine and Medical Research; 4; 1; 1-2014; 95-103
2231-0614
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/34160
identifier_str_mv Moretti, L.; García, A.; Nieto, S.; Elsner, Boris; Avagnina, Alejandra; et al.; Malignant Mesothelioma vs. Reactive Mesothelial Proliferations: Immunohistochemical Profile; Sciencedomain International; British Journal of Medicine and Medical Research; 4; 1; 1-2014; 95-103
2231-0614
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://www.sciencedomain.org/abstract/2003
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.9734/BJMMR/2014/3180
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sciencedomain International
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sciencedomain International
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1842269918919131136
score 13.13397

Publicaciones similares